UNASSIGNED: Open clavicle fractures are rare, and there are no current reported cases in the literature of a missed open clavicle with resultant fracture-related infection and osteomyelitis.
UNASSIGNED: We present a 65-year-old female with no reported medical history, who presented to our institution with left clavicular pain and wound drainage 8 days after she was struck by a motor vehicle in her home country of Guyana. She was found to have a missed open clavicle fracture with an associated severe infection. She was subsequently treated with irrigation, debridement, and distal clavicle excision.
UNASSIGNED: We present this unique case with a potential procedure which could prove beneficial in cases of infection, trauma, or oncologic lesions in which the distal clavicle is deemed unsalvageable.

UNASSIGNED: This study investigated the rate of acromial insufficiency fractures (AIF) in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with concomitant distal clavicle excision (DCE).
UNASSIGNED: Patients who underwent primary RSA with DCE by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2021 were identified. Exclusion criteria included revision RSA, RSA for fracture, or cases utilizing an augmented baseplate or bone graft. AIF was defined as a radiographically proven acromion or scapular spine fracture. Pain without an identifiable fracture on imaging was defined as an acromial insufficiency reaction. Patient demographics, implant information, and radiograph measurements were compared between patients with and without acromial pathology.
UNASSIGNED: One hundred and seventy-five patients were included. Mean age was 72.8 years, and 67% of patients were female. There were 3/174 acromial insufficiency fractures (1.7%). AIF occurred at a mean of 9.3 months after surgery. Twelve patients had insufficiency reactions (6.9%). Patients with acromial pathology were more likely to be female (p = .003) and have a diagnosis of osteoporosis (p = .047) and inflammatory arthritis (p = .049). There was no significant difference between groups in terms of other factors.
UNASSIGNED: The AIF rate in patients who underwent RSA with DCE was 1.7%. These findings suggest that DCE in the setting of RSA may have a protective role against AIF.

UNASSIGNED: This systematic review aims to comprehensively summarise and present the available evidence for the treatment of primary acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) osteoarthritis (OA).
UNASSIGNED: Five databases were searched for studies investigating the management of ACJ OA. Included were studies with participants with clinical/radiological signs of primary ACJ OA, an intervention and included a functional outcome measure.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-eight studies were included. Treatments consisted of physiotherapy (n = 1 study), medical only (n = 11) and operative management (n = 36). Operative studies included five comparative trials - physiotherapy versus surgery (n = 1) and open versus arthroscopic resection (n = 4). A total of 1902 shoulders were treated for ACJ OA, mean age (51 years), 58% male and mean follow-up (28.5 months). Treatment with injection showed a mean improvement of 50% in pain levels at follow-up (mean = 7.5 months). The commonest surgical procedure was arthroscopic excision of the distal clavicle and operative studies averaged 6 months of conservative management and a mean functional outcome of 87.8%.
UNASSIGNED: Studies varied in indication, intervention and quality but it did not provide evidence that both non-operative and operative interventions are effective. There was no significant difference between open or arthroscopic distal clavicle excision (DCE). Participants having between 0.5 and 2 cm of clavicle excised had good outcomes and those requiring concomitant shoulder procedures had similarly good outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine national trends pertaining to patient demographics and hospital characteristics among distal clavicle excision (DCE) procedures performed in the United States.
METHODS: The National Ambulatory Surgery Sample (NASS) database was queried for data. Encounters with Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 29824 were selected. Metrics derived from these encounters included patient demographic information such as age, geographic location, median household income per zip code, and primary expected insurance payer. Hospital characteristics derived included total charges for DCE procedures, location of the hospital, disposition of the patient, hospital census region, control/ownership of the hospital, and location/teaching status of the hospital. The proportion of DCE performed concomitantly with rotator cuff repair (RCR) was also analyzed. P-values were obtained from continuous variables using a t-test with a linear regression model. P-values were obtained from event variables using chi-square analysis.
RESULTS: The incidence of arthroscopic DCE in the US decreased from 99,070 in 2016 to 93,678 (5.5%) in 2018. Of note, the proportion of DCE performed concomitantly with RCR significantly increased from 50.4% in 2016 to 52.8% in 2018 (P < 0.0001). Median patient age increased from 2016 to 2018 (56.4 to 57.2; P < 0.0001). The income quartile that saw the highest number of encounters was between $43,000 and $53,999 (P < 0.0001). Hospital trends display an increasing cost from $16,944 to $18,855 over the study period (P = 0.0016). Private insurance, including health maintenance organizations (HMOs), were the largest payers for this procedure; however, a decreasing trend in DCE covered by private insurance was noticed (50.2% to 47.3%; P < 0.0001). Medicare was the second-largest payer ranging from 27.9% in 2016 to 29.9% in 2018. The urban teaching model of hospitals continues to see the highest number of encounters for this procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: In both 2016 and 2018, private insurance was the most common payer, most DCEs were performed in urban teaching hospitals, and most patients undergoing the procedure had a median household income between $43,000 and $59,000. Between 2016 and 2018, there was a significant increase in costs associated with DCE, as well as an increase in the median age of patients undergoing the procedure. The proportion of DCE performed concurrently with RCR also significantly increased during the study period.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this cadaveric study was to describe the characteristics of the \"A-frame\" morphology of the distal clavicle via computed tomography (CT) to determine if it can be used as a reliable intraoperative guide for arthroscopic distal clavicle excision.
METHODS: Twenty-eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric clavicles underwent a three-dimensional CT scan utilizing 1.0 mm cuts. The distance from the most lateral aspect of the clavicle to the point in which the superior cortex of the clavicle paralleled the inferior cortex was measured. Measurements were performed in a blinded fashion by a single author on two separate occasions.
RESULTS: The \"A-frame\" was present in all specimens (28/28). Upon first measurement, the mean distance from distal clavicle to the point in which the \"A-frame\" disappeared was 1.00 cm (range: 0.90-1.08 cm; standard deviation: 0.5 mm). Upon second measurement, the mean distance was 1.02 cm (range: 0.90-1.11 cm; standard deviation: 0.6 mm). The intra-rater reliability between measurement occasions was 0.65 [p < .001, 95% CI (0.36, 0.82)].
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the cross-sectional \"A-frame\" morphology of the distal clavicle was consistently visualized on CT scan. The \"A-frame\" disappeared 1.00-1.02 cm medial to the most lateral extent of the clavicle on CT scan. The disappearance of the \"A-frame\" morphology of the distal clavicle can serve as a reliable intraoperative guide for arthroscopic distal clavicle excision.

UNASSIGNED: The rate of complications of open compared to arthroscopic distal clavicle excision remain poorly studied. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to (1) Identify most recent national trends in the usage of open vs. arthroscopic approaches for distal clavicle excision (DCE) from 2007 to 2017; (2) to identify and compare the complication rates for both approaches, and to identify patient-specific risk factors for complications; (3) to identify and compare the revision rate for both approaches; and (4) to identify and compare the reimbursement of each approach.
UNASSIGNED: The PearlDiver database was reviewed for patients undergoing DCE from 2007 to 2017. Patients were stratified into 2 cohorts: those undergoing arthroscopic DCE (n = 8933) and those undergoing open DCE (n = 2295). The rate of postoperative complications within 90 days was calculated and compared. The revision rate and reimbursement of the arthroscopic and open approach were compared. Statistical analysis included chi-square testing to compare the rates of postoperative complications and multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors for complications within 90 days. Results were considered significant at P < .05.
UNASSIGNED: The percentage of DCEs performed arthroscopically has significantly increased from 53.9% in 2007 to 69.8% in 2016, with a concomitant decrease in the use of open DCE from 46.1% in 2007 to 30.2% in 2016. The open approach was associated with significantly more postoperative complications, including a significantly greater incidence of surgical site infection (1.9% vs. 0.3%; P < .001), wound disruption (0.3% vs. 0.1%; P < .001), hematoma (0.9% vs. 0.2%; P = .001), and transfusion (0.6% vs. 0.1%; P < .001), than arthroscopic DCE. Several risk factors, including open approach, diabetes, heart disease, tobacco use, chronic kidney disease, and female gender, were identified as independent risk factors for complications after DCE. There was no significant difference in revision rate between open and arthroscopic approaches (P = .126). The reimbursement of open and arthroscopic DCE procedures were comparable, with median reimbursements of $5408 and $5,447, respectively (P = .853).
UNASSIGNED: Both arthroscopic and open DCE techniques were found to have similar reimbursement amounts, with a low rate of complications, although the open technique had a higher rate of early complications such as surgical site infection. Over the study period, there was an increase in the utilization of arthroscopic DCE, while the incidence of the open technique remained constant.

OBJECTIVE: Symptomatic acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) osteoarthritis causes pain and limitations in activities of daily living. Open and arthroscopic distal clavicle excision techniques have been described with good outcomes. However, both techniques have their own sets of advantages and disadvantages. This study describes a novel technique of percutaneous distal clavicle excision for symptomatic ACJ osteoarthritis and our two-year results.
METHODS: Fifteen consecutive patients underwent percutaneous distal clavicle excision for ACJ arthritis. These patients had failed a trial of conservative treatment. The ACJ was confirmed as the pain generator with an intraarticular steroid/lignocaine injection, and shoulder MRI was used to exclude alternative pain generators in the shoulder. They had a minimum of two years of follow-up.
RESULTS: At a mean of 26.8 months postoperatively, the mean VAS pain score was 0, and the mean Constant score for the shoulder was 87.3 points (range 50-94), which corresponded to 1 good, 1 very good and 13 excellent results. The mean SF-36 score was 94.9 points (range 65-100). There were statistically significant improvements in the VAS scores, Constant shoulder scores and SF-36 scores at one year and two years of follow-up (p < 0.05). Three unique complications, namely subcutaneous emphysema, \"missing\" of the distal clavicle and thermal skin injury, were encountered. Our surgical technique has since been modified to circumvent these complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Our novel technique of percutaneous distal clavicle excision yields a 93.3% good-to-excellent results based on the Constant shoulder score and durable pain relief based on VAS at two years.

BACKGROUND: Acromioclavicular joint arthritis is a relatively common source of shoulder pain. The treatment options consist of conservative management and operative intervention depending on the severity and duration of the disease. Distal clavicle excision is the standard operative treatment and can be performed through either open or arthroscopic techniques. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome of arthroscopic resection of the distal clavicle.
METHODS: This was a prospective study, conducted in a group of 50 patients in the Post-Gra-duate Department of Orthopaedics, Govt. Medical College Srinagar, from July 2015 to July 2019 with cases followed for a minimum of 3 years.
RESULTS: The mean UCLA score improved from 13.2 preoperatively to 29.56 at final follow-up. An excellent result was seen in 10 patients (20%), good in 34 (68%), fair in 3 (6%) and poor in 3 (6%) patients. Overall 88% of the patients achieved excellent or good results and 94% were satisfied. Persistent pain and excessive intraoperative bleeding were the most common complications in our study.
CONCLUSIONS: 1. Distal clavicle excision through an indirect or subacromial approach is a safe and effective procedure with very few complications. 2. The subacromial approach gives the added advantage of evaluating any glenohumeral joint and subacromial pathology. 3. This procedure is associated with less pain and improved cosmesis in comparison to open procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping review to clarify the management of acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis, as well as to identify any existing gaps in the current knowledge.
METHODS: Studies were identified by electronic databases (Ovid, Pubmed) from their inception up to April 2nd, 2020. All studies reporting functional outcomes after conservative or surgical treatment of acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis, either primary or secondary to trauma or distal clavicle osteolysis, were included. Following data were extracted: authors, year of publication, study design (prospective or retrospective), LOE, number of shoulders treated conservatively or surgically, patients\' age, OA classification, type of conservative treatment, surgical approach, surgical technique, functional outcomes, complications, revisions, and length of follow-up. Descriptive statistics was used. Quality appraisal was assessed through the Cochrane risk of bias tool for LOE I/II studies, while the MINORS checklist was used for LOE III/IV studies.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included for a total of 861 shoulders. Mean age of participants was 48.5 ± 7.4 years. Mean follow-up was 43.8 ± 29.9 months. Four studies reported functional results after conservative treatment, whereas 15 studies were focused on surgical management. No studies directly compared conservative and surgical treatment. Seven studies reported a surgical approach after failure of previous conservative treatment. All studies reported functional improvement and pain relief. Complication rate was low. Overall methodological quality of included studies was very low.
CONCLUSIONS: Conservative and surgical treatments are both effective in acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis management. However, available data did not allow to establish the superiority of one technique over another.
METHODS: Level IV.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 250,000 rotator cuff repair (RCR) surgical procedures are performed every year in the United States. Although arthroscopic RCR has been shown to be a cost-effective operation, little is known about what specific factors affect the overall cost of surgery. This study examines the primary cost drivers of RCR surgery in the United States.
METHODS: Univariate analysis was performed to determine the patient- and surgeon-specific variables for a multiple linear regression model investigating the cost of RCR surgery. The 2014 State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases were used, yielding 40,618 cases with Current Procedural Terminology code 29827 (\"arthroscopic shoulder rotator cuff repair\").
RESULTS: The average cost of RCR surgery was $25,353. Patient-specific cost drivers that were significant under multiple linear regression included black race (P < .001), presence of at least 1 comorbidity (P < .001), income quartile (P < .001), male sex (P = .012), and Medicare insurance (P = .035). Surgical factors included operative time (P < .001), use of regional anesthesia (P < .001), quarter of the year (January to March, April to June, July to September, and October to December) (P < .001), concomitant subacromial decompression or distal clavicle excision (P < .001), and number of suture anchors used (P < .001). The largest cost driver was subacromial decompression, adding $4992 when performed alongside the RCR.
CONCLUSIONS: There are several patient-specific variables that can affect the cost of RCR surgery. There are also surgeon-controllable factors that significantly increase cost, most notably subacromial decompression, distal clavicle excision, use of regional anesthesia, and number of suture anchors. Surgeons must consider these factors in an effort to minimize cost, particularly as bundled payments become more common.